LAW FOR ALL
advocatemmmohan@gmail.com .
LawforAll
(Move to ...)
Home
▼
Showing posts with label
2020 [5] advocatemmmohan apex court cases 17
.
Show all posts
Showing posts with label
2020 [5] advocatemmmohan apex court cases 17
.
Show all posts
Wednesday, May 20, 2020
Indian Young Lawyers Association filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 2006 challenging the validity of Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 (for short, “the 1965 Rules”). A further direction to the respondents therein to permit female devotees between the ages of 10 to 50 years to enter the Sabarimala temple without any restrictions was sought in the Writ Petition. The following issues are framed for consideration by this Court: - 1. What is the scope and ambit of right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India? 2. What is the inter-play between the rights of persons under Article 25 of the Constitution of India and rights of religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution of India? 3. Whether the rights of a religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution of India are subject to other provisions of Part III of the Constitution of India apart from public order, morality and health? 4. What is the scope and extent of the word ‘morality’ under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and whether it is meant to include Constitutional morality? 5. What is the scope and extent of judicial review with regard to a religious practice as referred to in Article 25 of the Constitution of India? 6. What is the meaning of expression “Sections of Hindus” occurring in Article 25 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India? 7. Whether a person not belonging to a religious denomination or religious group can question a practice of that religious denomination or religious group by filing a PIL? The contention is that reference to a larger bench in accordance with the proviso to Article 145(3) can be made only in Appeals and not in any other proceedings. However, the proviso deals with a situation when reference has to be made by a bench of less than five Judges. The present reference is made by a bench of five Judges and, therefore, the proviso to Article 145 (3) is not applicable. [23] 30. For the aforementioned reasons, the instant review petitions and the reference arising from the review petitions are maintainable.
›
Indian Young Lawyers Association filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 2006 challenging the validity of Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Pl...
›
Home
View web version